Bromfield v Gosford City Council

[2005] NSWLEC 418

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Bromfield v Gosford City Council [2005] NSWLEC 418

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Keith Bromfield

1st RESPONDENT
Gosford City Council

2nd RESPONDENT
Minister for Primary Industries

FILE NUMBER(S):

10223 of 2005

CORAM:

Nott C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Jetty projecting out from applicant's property - amended plan to protect seagrass - appeal upheld

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 97

DATES OF HEARING:

01/08/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

08/01/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr J. Hancock, agent

1st RESPONDENT
Mr A. Ford, solicitor employed by the council

2nd RESPONDENT
Mr D. Holmes, solicitor employed by the Department of Primary Industries

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Nott C

1 August 2005

10223 of 2005: Keith Bromfield v Gosford City Council & Minister for Primary Industries [2005] NSWLEC 418

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal against the council’s refusal of a development application for a jetty projecting out from the property at 5 Albany Street, Point Frederick.

2 After lodgement of the appeal, the plans were amended, and the proposal is now acceptable to both respondents. There was one of objection to the development. However, having regard to the statement of basic facts and other material on the Court file, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to endorse the agreement of the parties. In particular, I note that the location of the proposed jetty has been changed to the northern side of the applicant’s land, and the jetty will not be constructed over Posidonia australis seagrass. This seagrass does not readily recolonise areas that have been harmed.

3 Part of the jetty will be constructed over Zostera capricornii, but the walkway of this part of the jetty will be made of expanded mesh that will enable light to penetrate to the Zostera beds—and this is an acceptable to the Minister.

4 It is common in this part of Brisbane Water for a private waterfront property to have a jetty. The proposed jetty extends over the water to a lesser extent than the jetty immediately to its north.

5 Accordingly, the orders of the Court are by consent that:

1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development consent is granted for a jetty projecting out from the property at lot 17 DP 978531 known as 5 Albany Street, Point Frederick, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1 to this order.
3. Each party is to pay his or its own costs.
4. Exhibits A and B are to be retained.

_____________
A J Nott
Commissioner of the Court
ljr